Re: ROUTEUR ET IDENTD
It would be convenient for me to agree to US English as a standard
since that is what I know. Though a Canadian I prefer the American
spelling of words. I think it would be cumbersom, but I am fluent in
'c', as suggested by another note.
While I did not articulate it well, I was suggesting a language
devised from usage, agreement, consensus reality - sharing. A kind
of mix of languages -- formalized in a standard that was viewable,
readable by everyone. There are too many different languages to
learn them all and so I learn none other than my own.
I would have to say yes, partially, to all of the other languages
suggested, especially Esperanto but since we are not using them
something must obviously be missing. I am not very familiar with
these languages either -- I have been lazy.
I suppose the reason that I questioned it at all is that I do not
know how to justify English as the standard. I have noticed
recently that language is more deeply bound to thought than I had
realized. ... sorry sounds a little too much like 1984.
There is a part of me that likes to invent new words -- currently
they are only my words because no one else knows what they mean.
Chris Lewis
Thanks for the info.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Thurman" <thomas@thurman.org.uk>
To: "Chris Lewis" <theantigod@sympatico.ca>
Cc: <debian-security@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: ROUTEUR ET IDENTD
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Chris Lewis wrote:
> > I don't mean this to be sarcastic. .. it may have been attempted
or
> > may already exist - I am internationally ignorant, though wish I
were
> > not so .. why do we not have an RFC that documents the Official
> > (Written/Typed) Language of Communications for the World - On
the
> > Internet?
>
> Are you suggesting an RFC that says "Unless otherwise stated, all
> communication on the Internet should be in US English", or
something? Or
> do you mean that the RFC would propose the use of an auxlang such
as
> Interlingua, Glosa, Ido or Esperanto? Or do you propose an RFC
describing
> a new auxlang designed specially for the purpose?
>
> The IETF has said that English is the language used for RFCs[1],
> incidentally, though that's a long way from any of the
interpretations
> of your question given above.
>
> T
>
> [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/overview.html
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: